IQ is an estimation, but it's generally accurate. When was the last time you met a 105 who was smarter than a 120?

The point is that if you have smart people in charge, IQ tests aren't needed, but for finding the difference between reasonablysmart-totallybrilliant/prettydumb-retarded, an IQ test will work just fine.

I think a lot of people read the rhetoric against IQ tests before realizing the people writing it have no idea what they're talking about. Linguistic bias does not explain differences in spatial reasoning, numeric recall, even most analogies in the test. There's another factor at work.

I would have no problem submitting to a competent IQ test at the end of which the under-120s would be shot in the face. In fact, I might touch myself.

We exterminate those who are a threat to humanity in general, with 90IQ or 140IQ, it doesn't mather.

IQ is a general test, and to me it's worth nothing.

Here's something from a recent CORRUPT missive:

Quote

PRIME DIRECTIVE: In order to save humanity from itself, eliminate all human beings less than 120 IQ points and force the rest into mortal combat to eliminate the criminal, perverse, devious and horrible. - The Eugenicizer

The point is to cut out the real fools, who are those who score below 120 and have done nothing of any importance whatsoever, and then put the rest into combat so they can eliminate the perverts, criminals, parasites and whores.

Life sure will be nice when they succeed. True, rich people will have to clean their own toilets, and we'll all have to learn to do things we paid idiots to do. But it's idiot work, and we'll have lots more free time since we won't be supporting billions of parasites.

I'm growing tired of the "Kill Everyone Under 120 IQ" stuff being pushed by ANUS and Corrupt. I think it cheapens the rest of our arguments.

Because:

A.) It is not the EXISTENCE of stupid people that has resulted in our civilization's decay. It is that stupid people are not in their proper caste roles. This was at different points a result of deliberate subversive activity on the part of social parasites who were probably pretty securely over the 120 IQ mark, for the most part.

It is actually absurd to absurd that sub-120-IQ folks aren't "doing anything important". Don't you realize that there is a place for a 'peasant' caste? A caste of people who labor, lay bricks, plant crops, and so on? People who free you up to perform intellectual labor?

There are plenty of people around and below 120 IQ who not only have useful skills, but are not socially and ecologically destructive. It doesn't take vast abilities for abstract thought to fulfil a sane role in a sane society.

For instance, take hypothetical Construction Worker Bob, IQ 96. He works hard, and enjoys his labor. He feels uncomfortable and anxious about the bizarre cosmopolitan bullshit he confronts every time he leaves his house, feels concerned and angry when he notices the woods near his house being bulldozed in order to make way for a new strip mall, and recognizes the need for a wise, stable social heirarchy.

Compare this fellow to Hip College Student Rudy, IQ 135. He's majoring in Feminist Literature and Non-Heterosexist Film. He has a sophisticated understanding of astrophysics because he enjoys mental gymnastics. His post-modern outlook lets him know that whatever he and everyone else does doesn't really matter, because everything is relative, Truth doesn't exist and is a boring cliche anyway. This doesn't stop him from adopting a leftist posture at school, however, in order to pick up cute dreadlock wearing anarchist chicks. He'll grow up, become a professor, teach Post Modern Assfaggery and live off everyone elses back for the rest of his life.

Who is worthier of life?

When people are ranting about killing everyone below 120 IQ, it suggests to me a lack of HOLISTIC perspective.

B.) It's not feasible, not even close to feasible, so it makes us look hysterical and impotent. Seriously, man, hysterical and impotent. Not powerful, not serious, not getting somewhere. I emplore you to consider this from a strategic angle. I sincerely believe in the goals that Corrupt advocates in their "The Plan" section. I think this shit is a serious hindrance to that being realized. If I were an FBI infiltrator, I would be spamming "KILL THE MORONS" as much as possible in order to dissolve this organization.

There are plenty of people around and below 120 IQ who not only have useful skills, but are not socially and ecologically destructive. It doesn't take vast abilities for abstract thought to fulfil a sane role in a sane society.

If we were to purge this planet of the perverse, useless, parasitic, deranged, etc, we likely would be destroy a large number of sub-120s. Mostly sub-120's, because of the sheer BULK of them.

I want to make it clear that I have no reservations about the elimination of all that extraneous, parasitic mass.

However, it seems to me that the definition of the "target" needs to be modified. Corrupt advocates frequently say "ALL PERSONS BELOW 120", etc.

Wouldn't it be more truthful, more meaningful and more encompassing to say "ALL PARASITES"? It also sounds less self-congratulatory.

But anyway, the practical considerations of all this still haven't been addressed: are these declarations of mass purging really effective?

Like I said before, I think the Corrupt "Plan" is brilliant and attainable. Screaming "KILL THE UNTERMENSCHEN HORDES!" does not bring us closer to it, or win over those thoughtful, valuable individuals who aren't convinced that the simplest way to solve the massive problems that we face is to KILL DA STUPIDZ.

I think you'll are ignoring the obvious total annihilation that will be brought about by global warming/whatever it should be called. Not to mention lack of space to dispose of the dead bodies/pollution caused by mass burning of about 5 billion people.

It will be nice to see people of over 120 IQ cleaning up the sewer systems, running the basic infrastructure, building the little components that run that computer you're using under hazardous conditions, etc.

I don't think we need a brute labor caste either. But as long as our society retains a level of complexity even approximating what we presently exist in, we will need specialized, non-intellectual skills: construction, carpentry, farming, electrician, plumbing, all manner of focused artisanal craft-worker, butcher and so on and so forth. There is nothing demeaning about these activities, nor are they extranneous. They are, however, time consuming. It makes sense that those of lesser cognitive capability and inclination should fill these roles, in order to free those who are DRIVEN to higher things (governance, adventure, warfare, discovery, great artistic achievement, etc.) up.

I'm not talking about a mass of shit smeared mop-pushers and housemaids. These kind of roles abound when the population is enormously out of control and there is a parasite "elite". It is make-work.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the possibility of a more streamlined, more elegant society... and also, a less bulky, massive society. Does this mean that we need to shout loudly about the cullings to come?

Born for Banning -

Don't call my idea moral. It isn't. It's structural. That you suggest it is moral (read: "bad") leads me to believe that you occupy a world of binary arguments, divided into you and other proponents of ANUSian idea, versus moronic Champions of Drooling Idiot Humanitarianism.

Not the case.

Also, on a very simple cosmetic level, the Corrupt argument you are citing is irrefutable. It may, however, be irrelevant as a result of leaving out other important questions, such as, "Is there some other course of action that would improve life drastically more than the original proposal because it strikes more directly to the heart of the issue?"

I suppose what it comes down to is the question of whether or not you think it is most fundamentally human stupidity which has resulted in this situation. And we're defining stupidity, in this context, as a lack of abstract congnitive ability, as opposed to, say, "insanity" or "malevolence".

Look... If you are forced to admit that there are "some you would save" it points to an inherent flaw in the idea that those with below 120 IQ are inherently useless, which makes the whole "kill the sub-120s" argument... not so smart.

I want to make it clear that I also believe that we need to reign in, conquer, destroy or similarly neutralize the vast, thrashing force of raw Dumb.

I just don't think that this is a very good way to do it. The whole "Kill Stupid People" argument has an inherent tendency to attract the angsty, hurt and spiteful... as well as those whose sole scrap of self worth is based upon their own sense of being above that 120 mark. You HAVE to be aware of this effect. Can't you see it already? Haven't you met these pathetic types?

My overall meta-plan would work very generally like this: (Please take note of where your 'kill the Dumbs' idea might fit in, without us needing to scream it out as our #1 policy):

1. Create a new aristocracy.2. Gather as much social power as possible.3. Create a heirarchically organized caste-socialism (National Socialism)4. Having reorganized society, begin a long, steady program of eugenics, weeding out as much biological Dumb and Perverse as possible.5. New Gold Age.

Logged

shadowmystic

One thing I've noticed, most people with IQ over 120, even over 140 tend to be no less retarded than those under. The only difference is they are better at defending democracy and other modern failures.